Makow - The Male Fallout
From Feminism Don't Give Up On American Women By Henry Makow, PhD
2-8-4

Martha Kirkland is a "happy but
poor" 30-something NYC artist who laments that she is dateless despite
being "bright, thin, attractive, funny" and traditional.

In an email, she writes that she and many women friends
"all possess certain idealism about the very distinct differences
between men and women and applaud them."

"None of us wants to either lead or compete in ANY
relationship, most specifically, an intimate partnership. We are, at a
relatively young age dinosaurs."

Often the first question she is asked on a date is how
much does she earn. The second is, does she "have a trust fund?"

"I find it so demoralizing that I lose interest
in these men right away...I understand the financial imperative of the
NYC area.... What I do not understand is how grace, charm and feminine
essences no longer seemingly have value. The last thing my men friends
want is ANY woman to be dependent upon them, especially emotionally and
secondarily financially."

Feminism lets men "off the hook." We no longer
have to take responsibility for families. Instead we can do as we please.
In my case, that meant search for meaning and identity.

Ironically, I learned that these are rooted in the masculine
role that feminism allowed me to forego. That's the hidden agenda. Feminism
unravels heterosexuality by blurring inherent sexual differences.

As a result, many men are turning off American women,
marriage and children. The latest version of Hugh Hefner's playboy is the
"metro sexual." He is a straight gay, fastidious about his appearance
and possessions, interested in sex but not in emotional commitments.

Martha continues:

"I attempt to persuade [these men] that the wildly
successful feminist does not become the Dove Girl at home. That they are
asking the impossible, a totally womanly creature that is utterly self-sustaining
emotionally, spiritually and financially. I attempt to illustrate how this
creature in fact cannot exist. Or rather co-exist, in the same female body,
mind, spirit."

Martha has captured the essence of femininity. To be
feminine is to be dependent on a man. Men and women can't have it both
ways: feminine women are not independent.

NO MARRIAGE.COM

Martha directed me to Jon Hertzog's web site www.nomarriage.com
as an example of what she and her traditional friends are up against.

Hertzog says marriage to an American woman is a trap.
Sixty per cent of US marriages end in divorce and men who don't divorce
"are stuck in sexless marriages with nagging and bitching wives, but
they choose not to divorce because they are afraid of being wiped out financially."

Hertzog, a 32-year-old never-married New Yorker, believes
American women have "several fundamental problems that will not go
away and will only get worse."

These include inherent anti-male bias and preoccupation
with "fairness" drilled into them by education and media; selfishness,
ridiculously high expectations, sense of superiority and entitlement; use
of sex as a weapon and reward; and general mental instability. "

Hertzog advises men to visit Asia, Eastern Europe or
Latin America to discover "how ridiculously overpriced and selfish
American woman are." He says men should never marry unless they want
children, which cost $400,000 minimum to raise and are a bad investment.
American men can get sex without marriage and should drop a woman the minute
she starts hinting about commitment.

DON'T WRITE OFF AMERICAN WOMEN

Hertzog's reaction is natural. However we need to look
at the big picture. Writing off American women only furthers the elite
agenda. The best response is to establish strong marriages with those women
who can still be salvaged.

American women deserve our compassion and help. They
are victims of feminist brainwashing and are suffering the consequences.
As Hertzog observes, most are dysfunctional.

Go to Blockbuster and rent Henry James' "The Bostonians"
starring Christopher Reeves. The movie demonstrates how a very strong and
very patient man can help a feminist become feminine again. Now that's
real love!

As Martha's email suggests, there are some American women
who have not been contaminated and are desperate for men to take charge.

Another reader wrote: " I thought your ideas about
heterosexuality were a little strange, [so] I polled a number of women
of all ages...It seems you are correct. Women want a man to make the decisions,
they want a man to take care of them, and they hate the F---ing notion
pressed upon them about gender sameness. Frankly I think most of them are
pissed. They do not like the unmanly men they have had to deal with. You
may actually see a change in the near future."

Traditional women want men to take charge. They are instrumental
by nature. They need to be used as wives and mothers. A man can recognize
these women by making a request. Will she do what he asks? Of course, longer
term, this requires earning her respect and trust (i.e. love.)

NO LOVE.NO SEX.COM

I lived alone for many years and am convinced that solitude
is not natural. People who are hungry constantly think about food. Similarly,
singles are preoccupied with companionship and sex.

Casual relationships by definition are insecure. They
not only are frustrating but consume too much time and energy. There is
no context for love (and people) to grow. Perpetual courtship is arrested
development.

A traditional marriage satisfies a man's need for companionship,
love and sex. On a deeper level, it validates and affirms both sexes. A
traditional marriage is based on the exchange of female power for male
love. Men want power. Women want love. (See "How Heterosexuality Works")
http://www.savethemales.ca/archives-subject.html

A traditional woman never uses sex to manipulate her
husband. When sex isn't an issue, people can focus on more important things.
Sexual liberation is not having to think about sex.

As for children, parenthood is the highest stage of personal
development. This is when we live for others and take pleasure in them.
Both men and women were designed to love. People who live for themselves
generally derive little pleasure from it.

WHAT IS FEMINISM?

We are not taught history for a good reason. Feminism
today is Communism. http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html Communism was
never a Russian-based revolt of the working class. It was always a mechanism
to control the common man and establish world dictatorship. http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html
Leon Trotsky played chess with Baron Rothschild at Café Central
in Vienna before going on to lead the Bolshevik Revolution. (Joseph Nedava,
Trotsky and the Jews, 1972, p.36) Like Trotsky, most politicians are elite
agents.

The Tavistock Institute in London directs the elite's
psychological warfare and social engineering. They cooked up second-wave
feminism to destabilize society.

According to Byron Weeks MD:

"All Tavistock and American foundation techniques
have a single goalto break down the psychological strength of the individual
and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any
technique which helps to break down the family unit, and the family inculcated
principles of religion, honour, patriotism and sexual behavior, is used
by the Tavistock as weapons of crowd control."

In a Feb. 1 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Deputy
Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz wrote that the "United States
is giving special emphasis to helping Iraqi women achieve greater equality."
They have earmarked $100 million for this.

In an email to me, Culture Wars Editor E. Michael Jones
commented: "Wolfowitz talks like a Communist writing for Pravda in
the '30s, but he makes perfectly clear in his piece that feminism is a
program appropriate for conquered nations... to destroy their culture,
reduce their birthrate and keep them in a state of subjugation."

We also live in territory occupied by the New World Order.
(See: "Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society"
http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html)

SUBVERSION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

I don't enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings, but things
have gone terribly wrong. Satanic forces have hijacked this planet. Of
course, they are not going to tell you about it.

The super-rich have more in common with each other than
with people like you and me who are "squatters" in their view.
United in secret societies, they have infiltrated and subverted our political,
economic, cultural and religious institutions. They are waging a secret
war on humanity and are responsible for the political and economic upheavals
of the past 200 years including the slaughter of millions.

The ultimate goal is to organize a weakened and reduced
world population in an Orwellian police state. The attack on the World
Trade Centre, the "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act"
is really about this.

So is feminism. The correct male response to feminist
subversion is to uphold rather than eschew the traditional vision of masculinity,
marriage and family.

--------

Henry Makow Ph.D is the inventor of Scruples and the
author of "A Long Way to go for a Date." His past essays on feminism
and the new world order are stored at www.savethemales.ca He enjoys receiving
comments at henry at savethemales.ca

Comment

From Sheryl Jackson

2-8-4

Sir you are one of the funniest men on the planet. I
was LOL reading your latest subject matter........

I know you probably did not mean it to be funny, but
I thought it showed great humor on your part and that is a new aspect of
you.

Congratulations on a great satire.

Sheryl Jackson

Comment
From Dale Rothschild
2-9-4

Every time rense.com publishes one of Makow's commentaries
on marital relations, like clockwork, the remarks condemning him as some
form of antiquated sexist roll in. Yet what he says is basically true.

I simply don't see why so many women interpret the concept
of male dominance in marriages as the equivalent of advocating "shut
up and cook my dinner, bitch." It is not. I for one would no more
dream of treating a woman that way than any woman would dream of treating
another person that way. Some men may in deed be pigs, but I believe that
for a real man, when it comes to decisions of importance to him, mere obedience
isn't the appeal of an acquiescent female partner. The appeal is in seeing
that her *faith* in his choice under such circumstances transcends her
*desire* for her own; that she places a greater value on him than upon
the decision itself.

Men aren't interested in having power over women. What
they need is to know that the power over matters critical to them is truly
theirs if and when they insist on having it. If a husband sees that his
wife honestly cares for him enough to make such sacrifices in power, he
will make countless times more sacrificial concessions of other powers
to her out of love and admiration. Which basically means that women in
marriages of the kind idealized by Makow wind up with more quantitative
authority than do women in sham "50/50" marriages. Men naturally
want to "outsacrifice" women; the simple caveat is that their
urge to do so is fueled by a woman's willingness to sacrifice upon the
particular items that happen to be of importance to the men. Pigs worship
absolute power. Men worship the givers of it, and then give back many times
more out of humility, admiration, gratitude, and love.

Quite sadly, too many women are unable to perceive this
age-old law of human nature. Thanks to endless indoctrination, the idea
of masculine dominance brings to mind images of barefoot, pregnant women
slaving over stoves for uncouth, domineering Archie Bunker husbands. What
they fail to realize is that nobody forces them to marry Archie Bunker.
In place of that realization is the engineered need to guard against one.
Which is what has whittled male-female relationships into mere contests
from which the only satisfactory outcomes are absolute draws and ties;
where power must be dolled out to each side quark by quark under the eagle
eyes of bean counters, and then maintained in that state indefinitely and
without fluctuation. Where no imbalances -- even those generating fivefold
returns on investment -- are permitted, since the very state of imbalance
itself, regardless of its greater purpose and reward, is now synonymous
with Edith Bunker. Which is the big lie.

Comment

From Starfleet

2-9-4

Regarding Martha Kirkland's plight...

Shalom,

I cannot help but be truthful about
her present situation. In the past I too have heard many of my friends
and some relatives saying the same thing as going back to their countries
of origin to find a wife. Most of my friends who knew of your website are
already married happily with several kids per couple, and all of their
wives are non-american women.

They tried honestly looking for a decent american women
but they all hit a blank wall, often times they don't know or have any
idea on how to seperate the good american women from the bad american women.
It is because of their situation in the past that they have given up looking
locally and started looking overseas (they told me they're not getting
any younger and wants to get married and start raising families while they
still can) resulting in many good marriages.

If only this information was available
many years ago then it could have given Martha Kirkland a chance, and for
some women who are still salvageable. Why not tell Martha Kirkland to set
up a website like "American Women For Traditional American Women"
websites, that sort of thing? Maybe it can get some things started and
to fight back against the anti-family new world order elite that you are
also fighting against and exposing their nefarious agendas and policies
to the general public.

As for me, I am married to a Russian
wife with 4 children being raised elsewhere but never in this country,
or else they'll end up like our fellow americans who are practically brainwashed
and indoctrinated in the NWO brainwashing propagandas in our so called
schools, media, and cultural environment. I'm Jewish and my wife is Orthodox
Catholic, two faiths are better than one!